Petitioner was awarded contract for the construction of "Pindi Bhattian--Chiniot--Kamalpur Road", the project of ABD Loan No, 1928- PAK. The bid of the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner was awarded contract. The period for completion of the project was 18 months, which was subsequently enhanced to 24 months. The petitioner failed to accomplish the task within the target date, which gave rise to the respondent to invoke clause 63.1 of the general conditions of the contract. Resultantly, tie contract was terminated.
2. The petitioner assailed the termination of the contract and invocation of clause 63.1, on the grounds that due to unavoidable circumstances, the delay was caused, the bills were not paid timely and the drawings were not provided within time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to other contracts, wherein the contractors, who were assigned the task of construction, were provided time and (sic) referred to these projects, which are P-2, P-3 and P-4 awarded to Channar Water and Electric Company (CWE). Learned counsel submitted with vehemence that the contract was terminated without notice to the petitioner. While referring to the cases of "Tehmina Mufti vs. University of Sindh Jamshoro and another" (1995 SCM R 65). "Pakistan and others vs. Public at large and others" (PLD 1987 SC 304), "Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and another vs. Brojo Wath Ganguly and another" (AIR 1986 SC 1571), he contended that actions where the principles of natural justice are denied, is not legally sustainable. Learned counsel then submitted that notice is contrary to the provisions of contract and contrary to the public interest. It was then submitted that fundamental rights of the petitioner, as guaranteed by Articles 18, 23 and 24 of the Constitution, have been infringed. Learned counsel supported this contention by referring to the cases of 'Messrs Ramna Pipe and General Mills (Put.) Limited us. Messrs Sui Northern Gas Pipe Lines (Pvt.) and others" (2004 SCM R 1274), "Messrs Airport Support Services Vs. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others" (1998 SCM R 2268), "Habibullah Energy Limited through General Manager vs. Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman WAPDA, Lahore and 5 others" (2008 YLR 2612), "Network Television Marketing Ltd. vs. Government of Pakistan and another" (2001 CLC 681) and "Messrs Wak Orient Power and Light Limited through Chief Executive Lahore vs. Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Water and Power through Secretary, Islamabad and 2 others" (1998 CLC 1178).
3. Learned Law Officer, on the other hand, submitted that 37 K.M. road from Pindi Bhattian to Chiniot, has been dismantled and the public is facing inconvenience. The petitioner has not accomplished 25% of the work at site. He was warned time and again to accomplish the task within the target date, but the petitioner miserably failed. Petitioner submitted an undertaking on 3.12.2008, but showed no progress.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused.
5. The questions raised by the petitioner to justify the delay in the accomplishment of construction work, are (sic) nor any direction to the respondents is legally permissible, without ascertainment of the factual controversy. It is claimed by the respondents that despite extension in time, the petitioner has not carried 1/5th of the work at site. 18% of the work has been carried while 82% work at the project is still unaccomplished.
6. Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to perpetuate injustice. The fairness is the virtue of a petitioner, in writ jurisdiction for the grant of discretionary relief. The petitioner has the remedy to invoke the arbitration clause, which is adequate remedy.
7. In view of availability of alternate remedy for the resolution of dispute through invoking the arbitration clause and for the fact that the petitioner's neglect and delay is inconvenient to the public, this petition cannot be entertained. Dismissed.